When we ban stalking we take away the first amendment rights of jilted lovers.
When we ban playing loud music at 4 AM we take away the first amendment rights of jerks.
When we ban plastering every square inch of a city with ads (to say nothing of banning billboards entirely), we take away the first amendment rights of business owners.
When we ban vandalism we take away the first amendment rights of vandals.
Any limitation on any act that has a component of communication (which is to say, almost any act at all) can be framed as a violation of the first amendment.
In my opinion, "I need 'bout tree fiddy" ranks below spray-painting a dick on a wall in terms of contributing to the free exchange of ideas.
Straw man. They showcase mothers begging for diaper money after a national disaster. But the bans are for all those healthy-looking guys that hang out downtown and accost strangers.
So, what you're saying is that the law is intentionally written to be overly broad to support arbitrary punishment by those in power of those they dislike for reasons other than what is prohibited on the face of the law. And that's okay, because you trust those in power to dislike the same people you dislike.
A law that bans licit behavior alongside illicit behavior to give law enforcement broad powers and discretion to target the illicit behavior is unjust. It gives the power to decide what is licit and illicit directly to law enforcement, rather than spelling it out through the democratic process.
Any limitation on any act that has a component of communication (which is to say, almost any act at all) can be framed as a violation of the first amendment.
In my opinion, "I need 'bout tree fiddy" ranks below spray-painting a dick on a wall in terms of contributing to the free exchange of ideas.